LEGAL POINT RAISED

Taranaki Daily News, 20 December 1930, Page 9

LEGAL POINT RAISED

' ' ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE. - PROCEEDINGS AT PREVIOUS CASE. During the hearing of a civil action at Manaia yesterday an interesting point was raised regarding the admissibility, of certain evidence. Mr. R .W. jTate, S.M., decided some aspects of the-ques-., t ion, but reserved another for consideration. ' 1 \ Mr. P. O’pea sought to introduce evir denca; tendered at .the police prosectf;, tion arising out of the same circumstances and to cross-exhmine on it. Mr? J;' Houston strenuously objected andquoted authorities in support of his contentions.- , In his opening-renlafks Mr. O’Dea referred to the police prosecution. Mr. Houston objected to this. He contended that it did not affect the ease whether defendant 'had been found guilty or not. guilty. Evidence of the. verdict or of anything that had been said aV the police prosecution was not admissible, nor if a witness’ statement : differed from evidence at the prosecution could counsel cross-examine on that point. . : : . \ Mr. o’Dea’s reply, was that collateral subjects ’' could be introduced into- the cross-examination. Mr. Tate considered the points raised were similar to that involved in the furnishing .of notes of a criminal case to parties in a civil action. This.he thought was hot right.,- As far as the cross-ex* amination question was concerned that was . a point that- would have to be set- ■ ’ tied.' . .‘Tt-inay ja‘point of great importance,” said Mr. Houston. His Worship said he did not think that - r " anythihg-elsb. but the verdict in . the police case could be admitted. As far as the Cross-examination dealing' with state- ; ments;at trial was concerned that might’ have to be settled. If the point: arose during cross-examina-tion he would take time to consider his ruling. Mr. O’Dea then referred to what Mr. T e had said in giving his verdict. ; , This, Mr. Houston submitted, was not ■ admissible either.. He was of opinion !• thdt_no one,, not even the magistrate, • was entitled 'to rise the magistrate’s • notes of the police action. As far as cross-examining ■on discrepancies . bes tween evidence in the police and. civil cases was concerned he would make strenuous, objection to its being admitted, as the proceedings concerned dif- : ferent? parties. - • Mr. Tate- indicated that if Mr. O’Dea’s cross-examination took that line it would be-subject to his considered opinion on its admissibility. It was a point ■•'that would affect motor cases throughout New Zealand, as it was quite com- • anon for counsel to ask witnesses why their evidence differed from that given '.S r the police prosecutions. The auth- / dritiet quoted by Mr. Houston lent $ colour to the assertion that when the / /parties iii the. action were different, eylAlenfe in the police prosecution cbuld not ba useii.